State Capitol

According to Gallup.com, one of two proposals in April 2019 53% to 45% of U.S. adults were for the Electoral College continuing to decide who wins future presidential elections.

 

 

The electors in the Electoral College decide who wins the presidential election in the United States. This process of determining the head of state should end.

Every state in the U.S. has the same number of senators: two. But they do not all have the same number of members in the House of Representatives.  Determining how many members in the House of Representatives each state has is based on the amount of people living in that state. The least amount of members in the House of Representatives each state receives is one.  

According to Colin Moore, who teaches political science at the University of Hawai'i at Mānoa, the electors in each state tend to be “people who are prominent in political parties.”  Moore also mentioned that, regarding electors, not voting for the party that receives the most popular votes for their state “almost never happens.”  

I do not see the need for these electors to exist. If all a state needs, with the exception of Maine and Nebraska, is 50 percent plus 1 of the popular vote to acquire all of the states’ electoral votes, then nearly half of that state’s votes don’t count at all. Additionally, according to Fairvote. org, “in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people.”  Back in 2008, now, nor in the future, one elector should not have as much power as over half a million people.  

Over recent years, a number of polls have been taken to find out how many Americans want to end the Electoral College.  Surprising to me, a poll found on Gallup.com, in April, 2019, in one of two proposals, 53% to 45% of U.S. adults were for the Electoral College continuing to decide who wins future presidential elections. 

According to history.com, at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, some of the Founding Fathers didn’t want a popular vote on its own deciding the presidency for three reasons: “First, they thought 18th-century voters lacked the resources to be fully informed about the candidates, especially in rural outposts.  Second, they feared a headstrong ‘democratic mob’ steering the country astray. And third, a populist president appealing directly to the people could command dangerous amounts of power.”    

Despite understanding the idea that some 18th century voters living in rural areas may not have known that much about their presidential candidates, that was a very long time ago.  Nowadays with the internet, television, and the radio, and people not living in the United States can stay up to date on what’s happening.  Simply put, I don’t think a lot of people in the United States know enough about the Electoral College to have it be so powerful. I asked Moore about whether or not he thought specifically younger voters could correctly define the Electoral College and he said, “No. I think there’s a lot of misunderstanding and misconceptions about what the Electoral College is, what it does.”

The reality is that the Electoral College probably isn’t going anywhere.  Therefore, perhaps presidential candidates could make more of an effort to inform their potential voters to know exactly how a presidential candidate is chosen so there is less of an outrage when finding out that a presidential candidate can receive more than 3 million popular votes than their competitor and still lose.